Is there a certain way you like them veil thier meanings? And if they made things that are difficult to articulate clear and easy to understand, wouldn't that technically be better? I'm not trying to start an arguement mind you, I'm just curious.
Look at At Grass by Philip Larkin. On the surface it's about horses, but when you really look at it, it's about retirement and old age, and reflecting on life. I'm not going to say 'Poetry should be this!', because that would betray it's origins in ballads and Epics. Poetry used to be the prime mode for telling stories, and I still think it should. There is no reason not to still write narrative poems (some of my favorite poems are Epics) but shorter, non-narrative poems are best when they are complex and short, narrative poems are best when they are long and tell a good story, while also having a complexity - see Paradise Lost. We just need to look at E.A. Poe's 1850 essay The Poetic Principle to see the beginnings of a shift toward short, concise details with more complex meaning behind it; he makes a good argument for this (very modern, it must be said) style of poetry.
As for how the author develops their ideas, I don't have any particular likes. I mean, there are poets whose styles I admire, but it's usually for more technical things than any kind of general philosophy about how complex ideas should be expressed. It doesn't even really have to be veiled or hidden, but simply open. If a poem offers only one valid interpretation, then it's a waste of time; there are much easier and more direct ways to communicate than to write a poem. Instead, a good poem should expand with every reading, offer many potential interpretations or points of resonance. Let's be clear, I'm not advocating ambiguity for the sake of ambiguity. You ask wouldn't a clearer poem be better, and I say yes, it would, but good poetry shouldn't be wasted on things that are easy to articulate. When I write poetry, I try to be as clear as I can with what I want to write about, as faithful to my voice and my vision, but the nature of the things I choose to write about is such that even at my most lucid there are things left murky, inchoate, that a reader can pick up and play with.
poetry has never been 'just about beauty'! Enheduanna (2350 or 2250 BCE) who many believe to have been the first poet, wrote hymns to her favorite goddess, Inanna... in one she is a warrior goddess and others are centered on governing, the home and children... sappho (c. 630-570 BCE) wrote about passion and love [for both genders]... chaucer (c.1343-1400 CE) certainly didn't focus on 'beauty' in his Canterbury Tales... etc., ad infinitum... that said, i do believe that poetry is [or should be] all about the 'beauty' of words...
Of course it hasn't. I was responding to akexodia who made essentially that statement, only I wrote the word 'archaic' instead of the word I wanted to use. It was a mistake on my part and I'm rather embarrassed I made it.
My sophisticated thoughts: If it doesn't rhyme, it's not poetry. If it rhymes, it's likely twee and limited. HTH
... man, arron89, you set off an entire debate 80 I love how everyone's got a distinctive view of poetry, even if they coincide in places - and seeing so many different opinions on how to consider poems is incredibly interesting! I hope you all keep discussing your ideas and also that other people join in, but once again: thanks for indulging my curiosity and sharing your view, this is all truly fascinating. to art: I can't say I agree with you xD I suppose you don't much enjoy poetry? Do you have any particular reason, if that's the case, or have you just never been attached to this kind of writing? Now, as for rhyming - are you only talking about the three fixed types of rhyming pattern (I think they're couplet, alternate and abba?) or do you also consider poems with a rhyming pattern which isn't constant to be 'twee and limited'? Not needing to adhere to a rigid structure would give more freedom of expression, wouldn't it, though it does rhyme and so, possibly, would be poetry?
Whatever appeals to thyself is beautiful. You see (or read, for that matter) something beautiful (appealing) and you instantly go "WOW! Amazing!" That was the beauty I was refering to. If you were talking about the beauty of words there, take a look at Wordsworth's poems for instance. They are in plain simple English. But the way its imagery stimulates my romantic (the nature one ) mind is beyond compare. It takes me to some other land. That's the beauty adorning the poetry. The reader must be able to comprehend where, how, and why did the poet write that poem!
poetry for me is a string of words with a twist in meanings. poetry must be difficult and easy with rhymes as well as sharp visuals that transcends that of reality and concepts. It must read fluently, has tightness or sveltness to it and floats unconventionally without sounding like a story book or a narrative.
no prob, lemex... i was really only responding to the idea itself, not to you having only referred to it...
